It's right here and I see it pop up a lot. No one gets a blank check. I do not accept "it's a rebuild" as an excuse for poor asset management.(same poor asset management reflected in last draft)I honestly have ZERO complaints about Davidson. We dont know how any of these picks will work out yet. Levshunov could easily be better then Demidov. Korchinski could be a #1 in 3 years. We dont know yet.
He came in with a plan tore everything down to the studs. We are still at the bottom hopefully we hit on this top 5 pick. Then UFA and we try to climb back up. We havent got the the part where its fair for criticism.
Just feels like you’re looking for reasons to be angry so you can show you’re not a cheerleader or whatever.It's right here and I see it pop up a lot. No one gets a blank check. I do not accept "it's a rebuild" as an excuse for poor asset management.(same poor asset management reflected in last draft)
Players like Strome are EXACTLY who poor teams have to acquire/keep and hope they hit big.
Ok, never saw that post before. O have complaints, I thought he should of been tanking harder still last year.It's right here and I see it pop up a lot. No one gets a blank check. I do not accept "it's a rebuild" as an excuse for poor asset management.(same poor asset management reflected in last draft)
Players like Strome are EXACTLY who poor teams have to acquire/keep and hope they hit big.
This doesn’t result in us getting Bedard if we kept Strome I don’t understand how this isn’t getting through to you…Thats my point. So, when I read some saying that they have no complaints about Davidson, I'm confused.
Fire him? No.
Blindly praise? No.
You mean aside from when he had 51pts in 58 games for Chicago?
Your missing the point.
Do I like Strome? - No
Did he have potential - Yes
Should crap teams non-tender these types of players - Hell no
How do I know that? See the last two seasons.
And bringing players who didn't fit the coach. Big misfire somewhere.Plenty of L's for Kyle in contracts he has given out
Atrocious Athanasou extension and others have followed
One has to question Kyle's pro scouting when he is bringing in trash like TJ Brodie on multi year deals
they could've QO'd him and got an asset for him, or at least they shouldve been able toThis doesn’t result in us getting Bedard if we kept Strome I don’t understand how this isn’t getting through to you…
No players fit Richardson lolAnd bringing players who didn't fit the coach. Big misfire somewhere.
They tried to trade him and nobody wanted his bum ass.they could've QO'd him and got an asset for him, or at least they shouldve been able to
It's not like he wasn't here before and we all saw that he did not hit big here...Players like Strome are EXACTLY who poor teams have to acquire/keep and hope they hit big.
no idea what your saying.It's right here and I see it pop up a lot. No one gets a blank check. I do not accept "it's a rebuild" as an excuse for poor asset management.(same poor asset management reflected in last draft)
Players like Strome are EXACTLY who poor teams have to acquire/keep and hope they hit big.
If they keep Strome, they don't get Bedard. I don't know how this isn't registering with you.It's right here and I see it pop up a lot. No one gets a blank check. I do not accept "it's a rebuild" as an excuse for poor asset management.(same poor asset management reflected in last draft)
Players like Strome are EXACTLY who poor teams have to acquire/keep and hope they hit big.
just to play devil's advocate, because by no means do i want to give the impression that i am upset they lost dylan strome, but i find this appeal to the counterfactual butterfly effect thing entirely unconvincing. you could justify every move the blackhawks have ever made this way. in fact you could justify really anything that's ever happened in all of human history. after all, if adlai stevenson wins the 1952 us presidential election, who's really to say if the blackhawks get bedard? wtf, i like ike now.If they keep Strome, they don't get Bedard. I don't know how this isn't registering with you.
I find it odd to not take into account.just to play devil's advocate, because by no means do i want to give the impression that i am upset they lost dylan strome, but i find this appeal to the counterfactual butterfly effect thing entirely unconvincing. you could justify every move the blackhawks have ever made this way. in fact you could justify really anything that's ever happened in all of human history. after all, if adlai stevenson wins the 1952 us presidential election, who's really to say if the blackhawks get bedard? wtf, i like ike now.
consequences matter, but when evaluating decisions in relation to their consequences it is important to consider what could (or should) have been reasonably expected when the decision was made. i find it hard to accept drafting bedard as the straightforward and predictable consequence of being rid of strome. what i mean is that just the same as i can imagine a world where they kept him, i can also very easily imagine a world where they keep him and they are still bad enough to end up with that first overall. i think the other guys are wrong to cry about this as though it were actually a problem we should be worried about, but i also think answering them with what amounts to "well the lord moves in mysterious ways, trust the plan" inspires very little confidence.I find it odd to not take into account.
People complaining about Jack Skille post 2010 made little sense to me. Also, people wishing Leddy was kept in 16/17, the only 2 years he looked solid in top 4s, over like Oduya/any piece that still helped win the 15 cup is nutzo thinking.
It seems more silly thinking or child-like to me, like yes if everything good plus more good, that'd be good. But that doesn't engage any consequences or accept any. Its just fantasy land.
Actions do have consequences and differences do happen if you take different actions.
I'm not going to get into a whole "butterfly effect" debate with you. But I feel that if the Hawks had kept Strome, it's very likely that alters their draft position. And that means it's highly unlikely the draft lottery happens the same way.consequences matter, but when evaluating decisions in relation to their consequences it is important to consider what could (or should) have been reasonably expected when the decision was made. i find it hard to accept drafting bedard as the straightforward and predictable consequence of being rid of strome. what i mean is that just the same as i can imagine a world where they kept him, i can also very easily imagine a world where they keep him and they are still bad enough to end up with that first overall. i think the other guys are wrong to cry about this as though it were actually a problem we should be worried about, but i also think answering them with what amounts to "well the lord moves in mysterious ways, trust the plan" inspires very little confidence.
It's much more concrete than that in this case, and pretty easy to break down since it was the first season post-Strome and you don't have to account for multiple seasons' worth of what-ifsjust to play devil's advocate, because by no means do i want to give the impression that i am upset they lost dylan strome, but i find this appeal to the counterfactual butterfly effect thing entirely unconvincing. you could justify every move the blackhawks have ever made this way. in fact you could justify really anything that's ever happened in all of human history. after all, if adlai stevenson wins the 1952 us presidential election, who's really to say if the blackhawks get bedard? wtf, i like ike now.
i understand the thought process. i have no problem with the notion that the hawks sold off to tank and were rewarded with a first overall draft pick. i just believe you overstate the case to make out as though because the lottery happened to pick the third worst team that every decision which marginally contributed to that particular placement is retroactively justified with no further comment needed. like, by the same token would it have been a bad decision to trade athanasiou at the trade deadline that year because he scored the game winning goal in the pittsburgh game that put the hawks that lottery position? seems farfetched to me, but that would also seem to be what the logic demands. i think it makes far more sense to judge such a hypothetical trade on the merits presented at the time, not in retrospect with information no one could have expected with much confidence or any certainty.It's much more concrete than that in this case, and pretty easy to break down since it was the first season post-Strome and you don't have to account for multiple seasons' worth of what-ifs
The tank standings at the end of the 22-23 season:
1. Anaheim - 58 points, 13 ROW
2. Columbus - 59 points, 15 ROW
3. Chicago - 59 points, 18 ROW
4. San Jose - 60 points, 16 ROW
Ending up in 3rd to last and getting the winning lottery combination required an extremely specific placement in the standings. A single point in either direction and the Blackhawks are no longer in that slot and no longer drafting Bedard. It stands to reason that playing Strome over (take your pick of the dog shit forwards they played that year) results in at least a one point change in the standings. Repeat this exercise for Hagel, Debrincat, etc. as needed
Fair enough, but I think of it as less about the uninteresting exercise of justifying KD's decisions and more about considering if those moves worked out knowing what we know after the fact. It's an unbelievable stroke of luck that it worked out how it did and that isn't the GM's doing. But people who lament the loss of guys like Hagel, ADB, and Strome should reckon with the reality that keeping them almost certainly means no Bedard.i understand the thought process. i have no problem with the notion that the hawks sold off to tank and were rewarded with a first overall draft pick. i just believe you overstate the case to make out as though because the lottery happened to pick the third worst team that every decision which marginally contributed to that particular placement is retroactively justified with no further comment needed. like, by the same token would it have been a bad decision to trade athanasiou at the trade deadline that year because he scored the game winning goal in the pittsburgh game that put the hawks that lottery position? seems farfetched to me, but that would also seem to be what the logic demands. i think it makes far more sense to judge such a hypothetical trade on the merits presented at the time, not in retrospect with information no one could have expected with much confidence or any certainty.
yeah like i said i'm just playing devil's advocate anyways to pass the time.Fair enough, but I think of it as less about the uninteresting exercise of justifying KD's decisions and more about considering if those moves worked out knowing what we know after the fact. It's an unbelievable stroke of luck that it worked out how it did and that isn't the GM's doing. But people who lament the loss of guys like Hagel, ADB, and Strome should reckon with the reality that keeping them almost certainly means no Bedard.
Bull shit there is a thousand things you could be doing before being that bored to play devils advocate on keeping Dylan Stromeyeah like i said i'm just playing devil's advocate anyways to pass the time.